ALI IMRAN vs STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arises from a cross-version FIR involving allegations of assault and causing injuries under Sections 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting versions of the incident, the inordinate delay in reporting, and the findings of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the Investigating Officer found the petitioner had not participated in the occurrence, creating a case for further inquiry into his guilt. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a significant delay of 45 days in reporting the incident, combined with the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation and the lack of recovery of any incriminating material, indicated that the arrest was unnecessary and potentially motivated by mala fide intent.
- Does a finding by the Investigating Officer that an accused did not participate in the occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry into guilt for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Can an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR be considered a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail justified when the prosecution presents two conflicting versions of the incident?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through the instant petition under Section 498 Cr.PC, petitioner Ali Imran seeks the premium of pre-arrest bail in cross-version dated 11.08.2017, in respect of offences under Section 337-F(v) & 34, PPC recorded in case FIR No, 354 dated 28.06.2017 in respect of offences under Sections 337-L(ii), 337-L(ii) & 34, PPC, registered at Police Station, Ludden, District Vehari.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as contained in the cross-version is that on 26.06.2017 at about 02:30 p.m, he while armed with pistol .30 bore along with one Arslan armed with hockey, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted upon Talib Hussain, the complainant of cross version near the house of one Fayaz Doltana and caused injuries to him with their respective weapons as well as fist and kick blows.
Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record with their assistance.
4. The petitioner was shown to be armed with pistol but the same has not been used and he was saddled with the responsibility of causing hockey blow hitting at the thumb, of the complainant and then the petitioner along with his co-accused gave him fist and kick blow. Talib Hussain injured was medically examined on third day of the alleged occurrence and his medico-legal report indicates sole injury on the dorsum of left thumb, which was subsequently declared as "Jurh Ghayer Jaifah Hashimah" punishable under Section 337-F(v), PPC. The record goes to evince that the petitioner was shown to be armed with pistol and attributed an injury by giving the hockey blow whereas during investigation the petitioner was found empty handed and that he had not participated in the alleged occurrence and, thus, the prosecution has two versions, one put forward by the complainant whereas the second one has been brought on record by the Investigating Officer, having found the petitioner not participated during the occuirence which makes the case of the petitioner calling for further inquiry into his guilt. Even otherwise this occurrence had taken place on 26.06.2017, which was reported to the police on 11.08.2017 with an inordinate delay of one and half months (45 days) and no plausible explanation has been brought on record for such delay. In case of FIR the said injured witness is a nominated accused with specific role of giving a club blow at the left hand of one Arslan, co-accused of the present petitioner and, thus, the implication of the petitioner in the commending circumstances with mala fide intention and some ulterior motive on the part of the complainant of cross version cannot be ruled out of consideration. He has already joined the investigation and nothing could be recovered from his possession. At this juncture the insistence of the Investigating Officer upon the arrest of the petitioners is apparently unnecessary and, thus, smacking of bad faith.
5. For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed and the concession of ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.11.2017 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.